Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
IMO, a photographer puts a greater emphasis on the equipment at hand, and on the field, than what can be achieved in post processing. It is easily possible for a casual “camera operator” to take a point and shoot picture and then, if PS savvy, produce a picture that looks stunning and may be comparable (if not better than) a “photographer” who spent time and effort to get the best lighting, sharpness and overall shot.
With all due respect to everyone, I agree with this. I think EinsteinGhost's point is that some people (not everyone!) depend too much on post-processing software to live up to their name. In other words, are all the girls who take pictures of themselves on MySpace or Facebook, photoshop them, make 'better photographers' than those who spent many years with professional equipment as their occupation?
Floyd_Davidson, you've also stated very interesting points that I also definitely agree with. I've associated Photoshop with my guilt feeling that comes when I happen to take a bad shot but never have thought of it as a tool comparable to darkrooms. The new perspective makes me look on Photoshop very differently now.
I've concluded that so far Photoshop is to be a tool, but emphasis should always be more on the skills when out on the field for that shot. If post-processing is the more important thing, then girls taking self-portraits of themselves on 1.3 MP phones can be as good as anyone else--something I will have trouble agreeing with.
I'd like to take this chance to thank everyone once again for their insights!
With all due respect to everyone, I agree with this. I think EinsteinGhost's point is that some people (not everyone!) depend too much on post-processing software to live up to their name. In other words, are all the girls who take pictures of themselves on MySpace or Facebook, photoshop them, make 'better photographers' than those who spent many years with professional equipment as their occupation?
Floyd_Davidson, you've also stated very interesting points that I also definitely agree with. I've associated Photoshop with my guilt feeling that comes when I happen to take a bad shot but never have thought of it as a tool comparable to darkrooms. The new perspective makes me look on Photoshop very differently now.
I've concluded that so far Photoshop is to be a tool, but emphasis should always be more on the skills when out on the field for that shot. If post-processing is the more important thing, then girls taking self-portraits of themselves on 1.3 MP phones can be as good as anyone else--something I will have trouble agreeing with.
I'd like to take this chance to thank everyone once again for their insights!
I would be so bold as to propose that anyone who can't tell "proper" photography apart from that of a processed self portrait of a girl taken by themselves on a 1.3mp phone wouldn't have the ability, skill set or "eye" necessary to do anything half good in PS anyway, so there's not much of a dilemma there.
I don't think either process should be over nor undervalued. Great work, patience and ingenuity in the field is important to have a good "negative". Skill in the darkroom (Photoshop) is important to produce a great end result out of the "negative".
When people say that they take more pleasure in the result they get straight out of the cam, I wonder if they are aware that shooting in .jpeg means the post processing that would've otherwise been done in Photoshop is done in the camera?
If the comparison is old film based SLRs where the person taking pictures sent the film out for development and got them back a week later, then sure, taking a picture in .jpeg and not doing anything about it can possibly serve as a substitute. But to the best of my knowledge, most professional photographers developed the pictures themselves, because the work they did in the dark room was just as important for the finished product as the work that happened in the camera.
To answer the OP's initial question, I think it has to do with what you are going to do with the photo. If it is a commercial photo then I think you can make it look as good as you want to . . .if it is to depict real estate, I definitely think it is cheating to make the house look better than it actually looks.
If it is to show off your artistic ability, again, I think it is cheating - so to me, the only non-cheating application would be for a slick photo op to sell to cheesy (not artsy) magazine.
You bet I think so. And virtually anyone who has ever studied Ansel Adams agrees on that too.
Ansel Adams only took photos of big ugly rocks!!
That is a quote from you floyd !!
After looking at the photos on your web sight floyd one thing just doesn't add up.
Your talk doesn't match your walk !!
That photo on your web site has to be the poorest excuse for a photograph I have ever seen! It is very obvious by the size of the text that you use that you cannot see well. And who is the person who is writing the articles in there?.. It is someone totally different than the person who posts in City Data.
For 3 1/2 years you have been coping everything I do; You sure changed 180 degrees - the exact opposite from when we first met!! You blasted me - for posting photos of my friends and relatives. then you go copy my exact format and start posting photos of Barrow (after you got me banned four times). Got 4 of my threads closed by lying and making things up.
For someone who can't stand me one bit. you spend more time on my web site than any other user ever!! 345 visits in 12 days! ????
you should really concentrate on learning instead of copy and pasting other peoples words from other photo forums.
It shows plainly; once you read what you have written inside your web site.
Really??? There is so much more in lens quality that what ANYONE can achieve in PS that I don't even know where to begin.
Could you address distortion/lens correction? Sharpness? Can you get a fisheye effect without a fisheye lens? Can you get an impressive bokeh without a lens that can deliver an impressive bokeh? To me, the answer is a yes to all of them.
Most people will be fine these addressed in PS. Sure, there are limitations but generally reserved for pixel peepers.
By that rationale, would you argue that Annie Leibovitz is a "computer artist" and not a photographer? Because I feel relatively confident, based on what I've read and seen, that she considers her work Photography and not computerized art.
I would call her an artist, who happens to be a photographer, who is selling more than just photographs, but artistic variation of those. Most of her pictures aren't what I would call "photographs" but artworks.
Quote:
I wouldn't call them tricks, I'd call it part of the process. When you develop a black and white image for instance, you have filters that can boost contrast, I doubt you'll find a single black and white, film photographer who would argue that using these filters is tricks.
No doubt. But I admire a photographer who uses his/her thinking on the field than trial runs on a computer.
Quote:
A camera sensor (or film, but sensors more so), lens and processing tools is vastly inferior to the human eye, because of this, photographers have utilized post processing techniques (and retouching for that matter) since the invention of photography.
Agreed. And PS is yet another progression of it which simply adds to what can be done and makes it more convenient for more people to use it. The overall argument of mine here is that while a modern sports car may use an ultra-modern transmission/traction system that can also be fool proof, but a purist will look for the deeper connection with the machine.
Quote:
You say that you predominantly shoot in .jpeg, what you are doing when you do that is allowing the camera to do the post processing for you, the main difference between what you do and what I do is that I do that post processing myself, I don't see how that means one is a trick and computerized art, where the other is "real" photography.
Except that my choice of equipment, the camera and the lenses, is based on what I want to see and depend on. It is why I don't like cameras that deliver oversaturated images (but most people like them). In some cases (as my landscape prime, Sigma 24mm/2.8 does), the camera adds a bit greenish tint. I wish I could change that without having to edit pictures to negate with a bit of warmth.
And for those moments, I can see the point in editing. Earlier, I mentioned the issue of CA. These aren't easily addressed on the field (unless altering the settings which may or may not be practical). These are issues known in advance, can't be often fixed out there, so that requires "help", darkroom or otherwise.
Then there are situation where a photographer turns "dull" water he just photographed to turquoise blue, even as it wasn't natural, slaps a few clouds to make the photograph appealing, adjust the lighting to come from left side of the frame when none existed. This isn't PS's fault, however, it is the desire and convenience dictating the move for the person. To me, they make for good artwork on a computer (or in a darkroom), but are far from an on-field experience.
Quote:
And there is where the argument lies. I simply do not see why digitizing photography means it's no longer good. You are essentially saying that several nationally and internationally known photographers no longer do good photography, but they've been reduced to computer artists.
It all really depends on how much, and to what effect. If they need a lot of help, then yes.
Could you address distortion/lens correction? Sharpness? Can you get a fisheye effect without a fisheye lens? Can you get an impressive bokeh without a lens that can deliver an impressive bokeh? To me, the answer is a yes to all of them.
Most people will be fine these addressed in PS. Sure, there are limitations but generally reserved for pixel peepers.
Software will not produce "sharpness" beyond the resolution of the lens and the sensor.
Distortions can, by definition, be produced in software ("distortion" is not random and is technically different than "noise", which is what makes that true). Whether existing technology can produce or correct for any given distortion depends on whether the requisite information is recorded or not.
Bokeh (is technically a distortion, and) of course can be adjusted in software to be almost any quality one wishes.
But a polarizing filter, which also produces a distortion, cannot be duplicated with software with current sensor technology because light phase information is not recorded.
And spatical frequency aliasing effects, also technically a distortion, cannot be removed from an image via software without also removing non aliased spatical components at the same frequency. Aliasing could easily be added to an image with software though.
Software will not produce "sharpness" beyond the resolution of the lens and the sensor.
Distortions can, by definition, be produced in software ("distortion" is not random and is technically different than "noise", which is what makes that true). Whether existing technology can produce or correct for any given distortion depends on whether the requisite information is recorded or not.
Bokeh (is technically a distortion, and) of course can be adjusted in software to be almost any quality one wishes.
But a polarizing filter, which also produces a distortion, cannot be duplicated with software with current sensor technology because light phase information is not recorded.
And spatical frequency aliasing effects, also technically a distortion, cannot be removed from an image via software without also removing non aliased spatical components at the same frequency. Aliasing could easily be added to an image with software though.
Sharpness: If it can't be improved, why offer it? Your pictures posted earlier seem to be sharpened quite a bit. Sure there are limits (and I mentioned that), but you should get the point.
Distortion: When I speak of it, in a thread on PS, I'm speaking of features it offers in PS, including the automated lens correction. I am not talking about the lens filter options, including the blur.
The fact is, a normal shot can be transformed with exceptional effects, quality and extent of which limited by the person's expertise with photoshop.
OK! I'm new to photography ( currently taking a beginners photography class) and while I read this thread (some of which I actually understand) A question tickles my mind. Why is using Photo Shop considered cheating by some, when all it is is a tool? Isn't that all it is? A tool! like a Flash or a lens filter or a reflector, a tool that makes your photo come out better than it would with out their use.(usually if you know what your doing)
I think the word "cheating" is probably getting on people's nerves when that should be reserved for deception. Most photographs can be presumed to be edited in some form (even my direct from camera photographs posted here are generally cropped often using a basic tool, however, being posted online). I used to keep three copies of the same picture, one "original", one edited using PS and saved as a JPG (minimum compression, I believe PS is an excellent tool in this regard) and the third is using a run of the mill editing program for online storage and sharing (more often than not, Windows resident software gets it done).
My argument is primarily on reliance on an external tool that is making it less on-field and more in-computer, not too far from similar technological progressions of the past. It is why I love the conveniences of a modern lens/camera and am really getting into the old fashioned unique designs that sometimes required "work" that fewer of us are willing to look at.
I can see why I wouldn't use my M42 screw mount lenses everywhere, likewise, I know why I would use them. They fulfill a different role, just as PS does it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
